Trackademia

Welcome to Trackademia

The idea behind Trackademia is to build on existing academic databases like Google Scholar and OpenAlex so that you can trust the data and use it for whatever you want. That comes down to two things.

More data, and more ways to use it. We aggregate publication data from every major source into a single dataset and add information pulled from faculty CVs. Then we let you slice it however you want: choose which sources to build from, write your own formulas, weight journals, adjust for department size.

More accurate, and honest about where it isn’t. We focus on a smaller set of schools so we can verify everything carefully. Faculty lists come from department websites rather than being inferred from publication records, so we know who should be in the data before we go looking. When we can’t find data on someone, we record the gap instead of dropping them. Every number comes with a coverage rate you can check against ground truth.

Everything in Trackademia is built from seven units. AI merges duplicate records across sources and tags each publication so these categories hold up:

  • Publication — citation counts, authors, journal, peer review status, and more
  • Publication group — versions of the same work combined into one entity, such as a working paper and the article it became
  • Academic
  • Department
  • University
  • Field
  • Journal

There are two modes. In Database mode you browse the underlying records and filter by any of the seven units. In Analytics mode you get graphs and comparisons, and you switch views to compare two departments, compare one department against the average of the others, or see them all at once. Tabs let you focus on a particular level of the data.

Back to the list
Journal

Asian Survey

close

Citation weight

Tierunranked
Weight in force
Weightingoff

Weight inputs

Each figure with its percentile among the ranked journals. A is the median, over the academics with a work here, of that academic’s citations to the works this site counts for them - never a Google Scholar profile total. Over every academic of this field, all years, whatever the filters select.

A · academics’ median11,707.0 · —
B · citations per work72.7 · —
N · works11 · —
P · academics7 · —
Formula result
Below the thresholdfewer than 20 works: unranked, and weighs 1

From this institution

Under these filters. A work with no citation count is unknown here, never a zero.

Works11
Citations800 over 11 of 11 works
Citations per counted work72.7
Weighted citations
Academics7
Departments5
First seen1983

Works placed per year

11 of these 11 works carry a year; an undated work is in no year. Works placed, under these filters.

Departments publishing there 5

DepartmentWorks
Harvard Government3
Princeton Politics3
Brown Political Science2
Columbia Political Science2
Yale Political Science1

A work held by two departments counts once in each, so these add up to more than the works above.

Works placed there 11

YearTitleAcademicsCitations
1987Democratizing Transition in TaiwanAndrew J. Nathan207
2000India, Consociational Theory, and Ethnic ViolenceSteven I. Wilkinson157
1988The NTR Phenomenon in Andhra Pradesh: Political Change in a South Indian StateAtul Kohli80
1991India, Pakistan and Kashmir: Antinomies of NationalismAshutosh Varshney71
1993The Legislative Yuan Elections in Taiwan: Consequences of the Electoral SystemAndrew J. Nathan70
1993China in 1992: An Experiment in Neo-AuthoritarianismElizabeth J. Perry60
2000Why have Poor Democracies Not Eliminated Poverty? A SuggestionAshutosh Varshney55
1983Parliamentary Communism and Agrarian Reform: The Evidence from India's BengalAtul Kohli34
1984Changing Army-Party Relations in China, 1979-1984.Alastair Iain Johnston33
2021Who Believed Misinformation During the 2019 Indonesian Election?Nicholas Kuipers29
2024Foreign Policy Orientation without Party Cues: A Case Study of TaiwanAlastair Iain Johnston4

Citations as counted, before any journal weight: 11 of these 11 works carry a count, and a work with no count is unknown, never a zero.